What should the NHS not fund?

[Username721]

Saw a thread on IVF for lesbians and some people felt that IVF should not be for anyone on the NHS. So it got me thinking.

Is there anything you feel should be exclusively private treatment? The ones often debated are things like weight loss surgery, cosmetic procedures, treatment for avoidable illness such as smoking-induced ones, liver failure through alcohol abuse, drug rehabilitation…

Thoughts?

Much more mental health provision should be funded as it can be prevention for many other problems that cost the NHS a fortune. We should also move from a treatment model in the first place to promoting health but this needs to be done with things like heavily taxing non food foods, cooking classes for those who need them despite the internet having practically every recipe and cooking lesson anyone would ever need, proper biology lessons in terms of how your body works, what all the organs do and what not looking after them can do etc etc etc.

Prevention is the best medicine.

No IVF funding either, there are enough of our destructive animal already on the planet.

I think this is a slippery slope, once you start then depending on who is in power, more supposedly 'non critical or vital' services would lose NHS status and others put back in. I think all treatment should be funded by NHS, anything else would be an administrative (& costing) nightmare. My opinion is that instead no medication should be free except for children. Yes that means pensioners have to pay. Vaccinations for elderly would still be free though.

This is such a wrong answer. The NHS belongs to us all and we all need to agree on the priorities. Would you say only those who have benefitted from a kidney transplant should judge if that treatment is worthy?

The decisions on the benefits of NHS treatments should be based on extending life, quality of life, how bad the side effects, cost etc. not raw emotion.

It would be an ethical minefield for sure. For example, (too) many people live with issues stemming from an abusive and/or neglectful childhood. Are they to be written off forever unless they can somehow become top earners and get the best insurance policies?

We don’t have national policies that promote health at all imo. It’s a constant fight against the onslaught of Big Corporate Food, Big Car and low salaries.

Smokers - where is the line drawn? Pneumonia, lung cancer, thromboembolism are caused by other things too, how does a medic decide? Eg if you live in a high radon area, had a career involving radiation or asbestos exposure?

I do think there are situations where health and social care professionals need to be trained and legally supported to make tougher decisions where appropriate, eg I once cared for a woman post-caesarean delivery whose newborn was immediately removed by social services. It was her 13th child. The first ? many had been removed for neglect and abuse already. In such a case I strongly think she should have been forcibly sterilised, and I don’t believe I’m a eugenicist to think that.

Most of these issues are brainmeltingly complex and can only really be explored by medical ethicists imo.

I feel someone’s earlier suggestion that IVF shouldn’t be available to “people who can’t financially support a child” IS eugenicist. Perhaps unwittingly. Are you really saying that someone who works full time on an assembly line, is a carer in a nursing home etc can not access IVF if they cannot conceive naturally? A strict ‘ration’ is fairer, eg 2 or 3 attempts. If we don’t have enough children we will need more future immigration.

For those who say IVF should not be funded, what about people like me? I have a genetic condition that carries a 50% chance of being passed on, my husband and I have taken the hard decision to not have children, however if we desperately wanted one the only responsible way to do it and have an unaffected child would be IVF with PGD. I am entitled to 3 free rounds ( with criteria) on the NHS but there is only a 30% success rate. Is it just a case of people with fertility or genetic problems aren't meant to have kids of if you can afford to have kids you should be able to afford to pay for it yourself? What is the reasoning and stipulation behind your not wanting IVF on the NHS?

That puts my prescriptions at £168.30 per month.

@ToadRage
Totally agree, I think the people who say IVF shouldn't be available are the same people who've never struggled with infertility PCOS or other issues.

I just think it's an easy thing to target. Because really there isn't much the NHS funds that they shouldn't.
Other than cosmetic surgery, inc breast reduction and for trans individuals I really can't see what we cut out.

We either want an all inclusive NHS or we don't.
Once you start a list of things the NHS won't cover the list will just get longer. And before you know it, it will be a matter of time before the NHS covers, vaccines, cancer and A&E type emergencies.

Mine would be about £158. I am on UC. No way I could afford that. That is based on the flat prescription cost, which is sometimes more than what the actual meds cost... sometimes less.

Also, DM was on a 12 week course of medication. The cost of each daily tablet was £400 (she obviously didn't pay that). The whole course cost the NHS £33600.

I’m on state pension. I have a stoma, each part would be chargeable , plus of course the meds I need to function!

No. I couldn’t have children. I had really wanted them. I really struggled coming to terms with it. I still don’t think ivf should be NHS funded.